Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

How Humans are also Animals

In "Animals Do Not, But We Do", we saw that critters can do all sorts of things, but they cannot develop languages, create civilizations, build colleges and hospitals, and all sorts of things. However, biologists will tell you that humans are animals. Is that correct? Well, yes and no.


Humans were specially created, but we are also considered animals. According to biological classifications and common design elements, this is true.
The Cowboy by Frederic Remington, 1902
According to biological classifications and physiological traits, we are considered animals. (Using the same kinds of system, we certainly are not plants or minerals.) Going further, we are more specifically classified as mammals, which have certain characteristics in common beyond those of animals. Some humans can be considered animals because of their actions like those who crashed planes into buildings on September 11, 2001. Darwinists use cladistics and homology to argue for evolution, but their systems can work the other way, arguing for a common Designer. Even though we are biologically animals and mammals, we are still very different, having been created in God's image.
Are you an animal? If a man eats with deplorable table manners, his wife might ask him if he had been raised in a barn. If the guy down the street behaves wildly, you might call him an animal, though not to his face. If you hear on the news of a couple like Bonnie and Clyde going on a murder spree, you might remark that they are behaving like animals.

What is it about these behaviors that prompts us to call a fellow human an animal, whether in jest or seriously? It is any behavior that we deem less than civilized, behavior that we associate with animals more than with humans. But do those behaviors mean those individuals are actually animals? Of course not. The very fact that we might derisively call someone an animal based on “animal-like” behavior illustrates the fact that we humans generally consider ourselves different from animals.
To read the rest, click on "What Are Humans? Animals, Mammals, or Neither?"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Animals Do Not, But We Do

Advocates of fish-to-philosopher evolution often point out the similarities between humans and animals, such as having DNA, blood cells, limbs, eyes, and such. We have so much in common, we must have evolved from a common ancestor, so we are just another type of animal, right? Not hardly! 


Evolutionists assume evolution and point to some biological similarities between animals and us. They ignore the stark differences, especially when it comes to accomplishments.
Credit: CSIRO / North Sullivan Photography (CC by 3.0)
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
We have a great deal in common with animals, I'll allow, but there are vast differences. Not just physically, either. Consider what we do and what animals cannot begin to accomplish. Imagine if you will:

"Cap'n! Number One Chimp has been hit by a pulsar blast!"

"Get him into sickbay immediately and call the medical supervisor."

Not happening, not ever. Nor will animals learn to write and ignore the rules of capitalization in titles like I chose to do.

Materialists cannot accept the fact that we were made in God's image, and critters have not evolved, nor will they develop anything complex. Leave that to fantasy writers.
If we humans are not evolved animals, then we should possess abilities and features that animals lack. We will here consider six of these, which are also features of God. They are language, literacy, music, mathematics, creativity, and dominion.

These features not only make us special, they also make us accountable. We can use these features to glorify God or to rebel against His will—even to practise “the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).
To finish reading, click on "What humans do but animals don’t".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, September 9, 2019

The Tower of Babel and Evolutionary Thinking

Many sciences are infested with the bedbugs of evolutionary thinking, including anthropology and archaeology. People who work in these fields assume deep time and evolution for the interpretation of data. Those of use who presuppose the truth of the biblical timeline watch as they are frequently surprised by their discoveries. 


Secular researchers are continually surprised by their discoveries, especially since they validate the biblical timeline back to Babel and beyond.
De "Weinig" Toren van Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563
When discoveries are made that conflict with the current dogma, they send a telegram to the hands at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass and have them get to work on the problem. (In fact, they are having a retreat at Biden's Eye, famous for its red color at this time of year, to discuss the problems.) Darwin's disciples fudge the data by redating this, that, and the other thing to accommodate new findings. Or they let the ancient aliens folks with their evolutionary thinking saddle it up and gallop away with the facts.

Humans were not stupid creatures who hadn't yet shaken off their simian ancestry. Instead, they were created fully human, and fully intelligent. The discovery of a civilization with advanced building techniques, a semblance of religion, languages, commerce, and more would not startle and threaten biblical creationists. However, archaeology and anthropology, when correctly interpreted without Darwinian shackles, support the biblical timeline all the way back to Babel — and beyond.
The story begins in the southern region of ancient Mesopotamia where 30 massive structures have been discovered that archeologists describe as towers of worship. These huge structures resemble flat top pyramids and were masterfully constructed of bricks made of clay. These buildings had stairs and ramps leading to the highest elevation where a platform was built for the worship of idols.

These temples have been identified as ziggurats. They were designed with equal sides representing the shape of a square. They ranged from 20 meters (65 ft.) to over 90 meters (295 ft.) high, and they were tiered with the roof being a place for the gods to dwell and receive man’s adoration. These towering edifices, dating from the 3rd millennium BC, demonstrate an amazingly high degree of masonry craftsmanship. These structures have never been found before this time and, more importantly, they demonstrate the sudden emergence of human civilization. The advanced level of engineering, architecture and community discovered around these ziggurats is contrary to what evolutionists believe with regard to the development of man.
To read the rest of  the article, click on "Evolution and the Tower of Babel". It's best to ignore the special offer at the beginning, that is no longer valid.





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, September 7, 2019

Limits of the Intelligent Design Movement

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It seems that the the simplest approach to intelligent design is to say that a painting had a painter, a building had a builder, and so on. Moving from there, we can show the specified complexities of various living things as well as the in the cosmos, the amazing design of the DNA molecule, irreducible complexity, and more.


The Intelligent Design people do a good job in refuting Darwinism, but their work is incomplete. Some in the ID community may be realizing its limitations.
An ornithopter design by Leonardo da Vinci, ca. 1489
The Intelligent Design movement is not something that has membership and issue identification cards. There are individual organizations like the Discovery Center that are specifically designed to refute various forms unguided evolution, as well as individuals who also promote ID. Darwin's dishonest gadflies, in their febrile efforts to reject God, say that the ID Movement is creation science in disguise. That is clearly false, as any schoolchild who can read their material might tell you. They have theistic evolutionists, old-earth creationists, some young-earth creationists, Mohammedans, agnostics, and others involved.

Don't be getting me wrong. Biblical creationists use intelligent design arguments frequently, but we do not divorce them from creation. When the two are properly married up, they address not only the intellect, but the spiritual aspect — which materialists deny and ID proponents mostly ignore. They do a fine job in refuting evolution, but that is incomplete.

In "Unsafe to Question Evolution?", I linked to material on how people in academic and secular science occupations who dare to question evolution risk their careers and reputations. A few who have tenure or status can do so a little bit, but most have to remain undercover. That post focused on Yale professor Dr. David Gelernter's "coming out" because he saw that the evidence did not support Darwinism. He is not too enthused with Intelligent Design because it does not go far enough. He realizes that neither evolution nor ID address the deeper issues of life. We can hope and pray that he will learn that biblical creation science can guide him in the right direction. For a short article on this subject, see "Yale University Prof: Darwin Was Wrong".

In a related article, there may be some agreement in the ID community about how they do not address important issues. Questions are raised that need answers, and there seem to be stirrings where some members (I use "members" loosely) are wanting more. An article on African chicklets — I mean, cichlids — which are popular among tropical fish enthusiasts devastates the idea that cichlid variation supports evolution. That is false, as regular readers have seen here many times. Some of the material on the cichlids could have been written by creationists. To read this article, click on "I.D. Catching up with Creation".

While presenting evidence supporting recent special creation and refuting evolution, we cannot essentially leave people hanging. Some folks seem to have the same foolish idea that I had: essentially, if we provide evidence for design, people will renounce evolution and fall on their knees asking Jesus Christ to be Lord of the lives. Such a view is contrary to Scripture, as I discussed in "Evidential or Presuppositional Apologetics?" Antony Flew renounced atheism because of the evidence, but apparently he was a Deist at best, and as lost as any other person who is unredeemed. We know where the answers can be found, and should not be ashamed of presenting the truth.




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, September 6, 2019

The Perplexing System of Pluto

People who like space exploration, and even those who are uninterested, are likely to have heard about the New Horizons spacecraft and its visit way out yonder. Arguably the biggest news came from the flyby of Pluto. The results were surprising to both creationists and secular scientists. Things keep getting worse for proponents of cosmic evolution.


Pluto and its moons have caused problems for secular scientists for quite a while. New speculations about its origin leave us cold.
Credits: NASA / JHUAPL / SwRI (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
If you think back on your basic solar system knowledge, you might rightly recollect that the first four planets are called terrestrial, skip the asteroid belt, then we find the gas giants like Jupiter and the next three. After that comes a lot of rubble, Barney, called trans-Neptunian (or Kuiper belt) objects. Pluto and its system are way out there.



While secularists have a whole heap of problems dealing with evidence that the solar system is young, they are also struggling with various speculations on how it formed. (My own guess is that our Creator was playing a prank on secular scientists who wanted to believe in deep time rather than recent creation.) Planets and moons fly retrograde at times, the composition of the inner planets, then the outer planets, and then Pluto and company have evolution-defying composition. Their orbits are recalcitrant as well. Secular scientists are even speculating that Neptune and Uranus migrated out there. Probably illegally. Both secular and creation scientists have gained a great deal of information, but there is more to learn and everyone has their work cut out for them.
In recent issues of Journal of Creation, John Hartnett and Danny Faulkner have both commented on discoveries regarding the satellites of Pluto from the July 2015 New Horizons mission. There are many mysteries about the Pluto system that are sure to be the subject of much research and discussion for years to come. Hartnett and Faulkner addressed some difficulties for evolutionary naturalistic theories to explain the origin of Pluto’s natural satellites. I would like to comment on the new theories being explored by planetary scientists regarding the Pluto system.
To read the rest, click on "The satellites of Pluto". 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Facing Up To Faces

Faces are useful and, at times, fun. We can communicate with them in subtle ways, especially people who have been together for a long time. If you stop and study on it, animals do not have much variety in expressions; that squirrel I chased off the patio had the same expression he had before, but I know he was both alarmed and angry.

Darwinists assume evolution, and researchers wanted to see how we evolved faces. They did not have any success.
Original image credit: Unsplash / Francesco Ungaro
Frame enhancement: PhotoFunia
As expected, some Darwinists started with the assumption of evolution, then tried to reckon how we evolved faces from those of our alleged ancestors. There are many factors involved, what with muscles, functions, and all that make the matter difficult. Researchers made assertions but only paid lip service to evidence. Seems to me that this is along the lines of the absurd believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, since there are numerous changes that must be in place, but evolutionists have no mechanisms. Let's face it, we are not related to apes, but were separately created.
A team based at Arizona State University (ASU) Institute of Human Origins recently speculated on how the distinct features of human faces evolved from ape-like faces.  Their science-sounding terms masked a failure to face certain facts that should have framed their conclusion.
To read this short article in its entirety, click on "Where Did Faces Come From?"


via GIPHY


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Evolution, the Disreputable Girlfriend of Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Although science is a tool for interpreting observable evidence, people treat it like an entity, such as in the expression "science says". Scientists say, not science, but we can work with this later. Science is used by fallible humans who have biases and make mistakes, sometimes clinging to bad ideas despite evidence.


Science has a girlfriend known as Evolution. She has caused many problems for Science, but he will not send her packing.
Made with PhotoFunia
For example, the phlogiston theory of combustion was disproved but it took a while before it was put out to pasture. Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that medical people needed to wash their hands before touching patients, but his evidence was rejected for many years. The views of Charles Darwin gained acceptance despite contrary evidence, which includes deep time in geology and also cosmic evolution.

Evolution is the girlfriend of ill-repute of Science. They go to parties together, and Science uses Evolution to impress people. However, Evolution is unfaithful and even invites her brother Scientism over for long visits, drinking all the fire water, stealing the rent money, and trashing the place. Bad company corrupts good morals, and even brings down mediocre morals. Science need to tell Evolution to pack her grip and get out, but he's too infatuated with the pleasures she brings. Which is weird, because Science and Evolution fight quite a bit, but neither of them notice.



Yes, I know, the above paragraph is a sardonic example of reification, but I used it to make a point. People believe in deep time, biological and chemical evolution, and adhere to Scientism despite contrary (or absent) evidence, not because of it. Things are presented as science that are risible, but Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ spread speculations as if they were actual scientific evidence of something. Sorry, old son, but there are many things unknown to science despite the posturing and guesswork of scientists. Savvy that?

Begging the question (using evolution to prove evolution) and materialistic presuppositions give rise to some stories that should give the public the giggles. Unfortunately, critical thinking is not taught enough in the public indoctrination centers, so people fall for what scientists say. Someone with healthy skepticism should ask questions (even to themselves) and spot the materialistic presuppositions involved — extra credit for knowing the science that is being ignored.

Here are a few examples:

  • We can see extraterrestrials because they will have evolved the ability to glow special colors for their protection.
  • Climate change is making populations of angry spiders.
  • Because microbes attach themselves to sand and disperse, that's how live is spread on Mars.
You can read about these and more examples of bad science by clicking on "Unrestrained Speculation in Darwin Fantasyland". In addition, I suggest "What Science Doesn't Know" and "Evolution vs Science". Science needs to get rid of that Evolution girlfriend, and scientists should humble themselves before the Creator, who is the source of true wisdom.




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels